Planning & Zoning - Regular Meeting

Your life. Good evening, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning meeting today. Today is Tuesday, May 27th. We have a call to order. I'm going to check first if we have any conflicts of interest tonight. No. We will move into a public participation. Do we have anyone in the public that would like to speak on the agenda for consent agenda? Or we have one. Do I do I gotta swear on that. Okay. Good evening. My name is George Pearson. Before you turn the minutes on your agenda, please check the members list. The list of members present. I love these members. Present is correct. Mister Kaiser is listed in the chair. And the rest of festivals that you have this meeting. Now, I'd like to talk about the Mesa Gravel Drive road extension that has been proposed. It's not coming for you, but it is something that. Is of interest because there's something, I think the million dollars that have been promised by the not here of the many shows up. It's pretty sure that that will be on the wall. Does that mean that they met? The need for this project is debatable. Is there something we can? My ask is that we build this as a true 21st century roadway. What I mean by this is that 15 degrees, driving for some reason, as we said before, I would agree with special consideration for the vulnerable roadway users. It's well documented that the percentage of deaths is disproportionate with what seemed like little concern as to was recently updated and published a bikeway design guide. This includes guidance

for protected bike lanes and extra protection for bicyclists and pedestrians. Other infections. While we are designing this type of cross section and maybe it should be guided by this updated, or it doesn't have the director to approve alternative design. A design West by Ashton would certainly be covered. So if we're going to build once again, it's built into the 21st century roadway that is possible for all users. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any public comment? All right. Do we have anyone who would give me speaking on anybody from the public? I'm just trying to get a number. Okay. Staff. Okay. It's the last one, so I think we're okay then. So everyone here is for the new business on the major night. Is that correct? Yeah. Okay. Thank you. We're going to have an acceptance of the agenda with the. I think we got to have the alteration of the. No alteration, just on the minutes. So it'll be okay. So you got that taken care of? The secretary. So I need a motion for the acceptance of the agenda. I accept. The changes on

the. Meeting from last month. I have a motion to accept the agenda. Commissioner? Yes. Yes. Commissioner. Councilor. Commissioner. Kaiser. Yes. And. Chair. Yes. Thank you. So the next one is just going on to the consent agenda is passed. Accept agenda. Okay. And then we have the acceptance of the agenda as presented. Isn't that what we just did? Yes. Okay. So the first one has been. Going on to new business and that will go through the whole staff presentation. Oh, sorry. First I need to membership for the hearing of it. So just for. Or so the motion is to hear the item. And then we'll make a motion to approve. The. What happens if we want to vote on option that was not to approve. Like what if it was to table or something like that. So do we make a motion at that point to table. Okay. So I'll make a motion to approve on the 17th. I'll second that motion.

Commissioner. Yeah. You don't have to vote. I'm sorry. Okay. Good evening, commissioners Vincent, senior planner for the record, here to present the cases involving a master plan. Amendment number five, zone changes for the Sonoma Ranch East two. Master plan area. Current conditions. As it relates to this master plan area. The property is located south of the Alameda Arroyos, South Fork, if you will. North is east of Pagosa Hill and Petaluma, at least beyond the development area that exists there and west of the Mesa Verde Drive. The subject master plan will be. Acts, and that contained roughly 122 acres. Originally was originally master Plan and zoning and City Council action back in February of 2005. The property, with the exception of the 1 to 6 vacant. In the area of the land to the north and to the east are also vacant. That we were developing a sports complex to the south, single family high and medium density zoned residential to the west. The applicant has requested that this proposal and the zoning changes that go along with the process under the land development process, and that's what you will hear exclusively this evening in context to those

codes. The last amendment under was back in 2014 for the area that was approved in 2020, and it reflects the following land uses, which consist of mixed or slash uses involving single family, high density, multi dwelling, medium density uses. There was a single family high density, medium density and commercial high intensity uses. Single family high density uses single meet and commercial low intensity. Commercial high intensity flood control and flood control. Open space recreation. So when I speak to the mixed uses, those are uses that are identified in the master plan and the pursuance of zoning that, that. Enacts those uses. They are developed either one of them with land uses or combination of 2 or 3. What could be? Complete works of art or similar? Similar use of any one of the land uses. But we're talking about the standing of 122 over the remaining anchors. Currently zoned with flood control. That's the last thing I want by a single family. High density C-3 is a commercial high intensity zone, and the mixed or slash or pancake zones you may have heard about in the past of RMB or three and C three will be our three, as well as those are, those are the flood control,

open space recreation zones. The property currently sits within the Suburban neighborhood Placement, and that's pursuant to our comprehensive plan. The suburban place type will be characterized later. But the property is accessible from various roadways thoroughfares. Pursuant to our. Future master Plan to drive, which is proposed to be a minor arterial 100ft of right of way. So what kind of things? So we have, frankly, the major collector at 85 foot right away. Similar boulevard and other minor arterial. And Pagosa Hills is the local at 50ft of right of way. Here's the area that represents the boundary of question. So everything you see outlined in red, including. The water tank here, is part of the request. There's no action or no change to the right of the property, but nonetheless it's been added as part of the development proposal. So master plan comparisons are as follows. The amendment four is on the left. Amendment of proposed on the right. We spent a lot of. Input either via phone calls and or otherwise. That one a description of what the actual changes were to look line. And as we look at amendment four on the right, you see various planning parcels is what they're called. In fact, there's two

located right here before you get to this boulevard. And what they are doing in concert to the proposed number five is a combined them. So they are combining those two parcels and adding a two acre park parcel here. Amongst the two that exist in area four. The land uses that are specific to the upper 87. Consist of single family, high density land use designation and H eight below as single family high density, as well as multi-dwelling medium density. That designation here with H eight goes away and becomes part of H seven, and it all becomes high density. With exception of that park. Below that you have these two parcels are also human. You have. Land uses. In fact, let me see if I can. Magnify that national park. Sorry about that. So you have a single family. High density land use designated as parkland. You had a little park, pocket park, if you will, and located here. And then on H 19 you have a single family, high density residential, multifamily, medium density. Those get combined, all get combined. As you see over

here. And it will become single family, low density residential. H 33, which is a commercial low density land use designation, gets absorbed into this larger planning profile. So we'll move on to the commercial age 29, which is a combination of family high density residential medium density and density residential, sorry. And high intensity commercial. That designation there because it gets absorbed in large part into this planning parkland. With exception of a small strip that is delineated here from the floodplain for the Arroyo boundary, basically. But it becomes it becomes a this vicinity here, all single family, low density residential. I have indicated that Rio Grande is the arroyo boundary that has been established. A I'm sorry, this one and s two are the designations for open space natural conservation, and those are part of this one piece. Part of this a two portion down below here. And part of this age 32, which is commercial high intensity. What is one piece of H 32 becomes single family low

density. So what you have here with a low density here, single family low density here. And the rest is arroyo boundaries and open space. Natural conservation. Down here you have flood control. This this one isn't changing except for the open space recreation designation becomes open space natural conservation. This, as I indicated, was tank water editing site. There's no change there. This is the existing zoning that basically implements the amendment for provision. I already stated that these uses are zoning designations are. But again you can see that this changes this larger piece here in light yellow at least. Yeah. And this one down here, those are all single family high density zoning districts. This will be our three. This one and this one down here. Well the combination of single family high density and multi medium density districts. And then this one is the same except it adds a commercial element of high intensity. You have a commercial low intensity there. So zoning that you're seeing here implements amendment for this piece right here. Just for the record is located in there. Based on the research conducted on two ordinances were found that clearly indicate that this piece here should still longer. It was originally, for whatever reason, was not at that

location. And there's been a request to change that. So this piece, this these are slides over to the left. That's the current location for that zoning designation. So this is just a map. I won't go into great detail here. Zoning follows the land was looking for the Council zoning designation that came with 87H8 becoming one. As I indicated, these two guys. Will be coming on as we indicated, etcetera. So again follows the land use designations. In terms of analysis and findings, and planning, both because of we listed them. And this kind of is a synopsis of both elements that staff has considered. Basically, there are no adverse health and development issues identified by staff during the conduct of review. The amendment almost exclusively, with about 75% of the total acreage that proposes a single family low density development. The single family residential densities. Are large part of the forest, so the high density, for instance, down to the low density. The proposal does seek residential development consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods in the area. You do have a lot of single family homes, detached homes, medium density or high density standard. You also have large lot development in the area. The proposed single family density threshold is far lower

than a place type reading for light developments. And by that I'm pertaining to a reference to the suburban place type or the density wave. For single family dwellings between 40. Dwelling units per acre. And the proposed zoning is consistent with the master plan element that they are also proposing. This evening, the master plan on the at the Neighborhood Playhouse type, which is characterized by low to moderate density residential. Within the company, planned with reference to the style of development consisting of retail, office, mixed residential styles attached, detached, etc. So families, the schools and parks. There's also reference to a future development that that refers to neighborhood center locations. The neighborhood center itself is a type of development pattern, if you will, that the chemistry of the. Emphasized mixed use, but in the context of a neighborhood level mixed use. So it's not after the. Big box type development or after any development that helps serve the neighborhood. So there are locations that are referenced in that lap. One was the last straw is one to drive, but one had the northern boundary of the amendment and there's one at the left center between closer to the campus, but between kind of ethos and. Savannah Park, I

believe. At that location and to the south, beyond the development of boundaries on the southern border. The. Applicant and the representative have submitted a letter that's included in your packet. They have stipulated that they do not see any form of. Neighborhood center locations in that existing. Center location or services, I should say, can be accommodated along with existing the town center for the north of that Lohman Avenue, etc. So that's their position on that. And I just wanted to indicate that for you. The proposal also seeks to better define sensitive buildings like aurora boundaries, as I illustrated on the left, are also preserve some of the natural areas and topography which bring some topography out there. That would have to be rough, and they also. Stick to. Formalize and convey acreage that was allocated for parks along the way. Through all these amendments, and to relocate that to the north, which I showed you. And that is a two acre park that is being proposed. So we believe in accessibility to the neighborhood of that, especially given the fact that we have a regional park further south, the proposal has a purpose and intent of the 2000 and zoning, as amended. And the cases were latest as per the code, in that

letters went out to the property owners within 500ft of the boundaries for the proposal and threw that out, and staff had received several phone calls and several emails. The emails that we received will be forwarded to you, and properties have been provided at your desk at, at at the dais there. Some of the issues that were referenced through this communication through the City Club were. Stormwater management. Water. The impact, etc. Land use. Clarification on what's being considered, the timing of construction and roadway improvements, existing zoning, what it what it looks like and how it compares with the proposed zoning. General inquiries and compatibility. The DRC in April. Heard the case of Arbor Master Plan, and they recommended through unanimous vote approval with conditions and your options this evening as it relates to the master Plan amendment, is to vote yes and approve the master plan to vote tonight. You can vote to amend or revoke the table. I should note that the commission was the final authority on the master plan. Unless the State Council and in terms of the zoning change request, you could vote yes with recommend approval to City Council. Local waterfowl and wetlands denial to city Council. You can vote on them and include any conditions you fill in the relevant. You can also go to the table with direction from the Commission

and pursue whatever direction that looks like. That concludes staff's presentations. Presentation. And we, the applicant, Mr. John Mosquito and the design engineer, Mr. Paul. Penfield from City Road would be attendance and I believe they have some information to present to you as well. Thank you. Can we is it okay for you for the opportunity to give us a presentation? Yeah. Thank you. Just go up there, John. You can use whatever slides I don't know okay. Thank you. Could you gentlemen, on behalf of applicant Sierra Norte Development. Sorry, I got to swear you in real quick. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of hell? Yes, I do, thank you. Thank you. I just like to shed some light on a few of the items that Mr. Benegas touched on. And a few that that haven't been discussed yet in terms of conformance through the outrageous Cruces Comprehensive plan. As Mr. Pineda pointed out, this property is in the Suburban Neighborhood plan, which includes low and medium density development. This being a relatively low density development that we are proposing, it conforms to the

suburban place type. The suburban place type also provides for recommending a diversity of housing types. It's been over a decade since low density, large lot subdivisions have been developed in the Sonoma Ranch area. Everything around it is smaller, lots more traditional size lots. So this does include some diversity, which is lacking right now. We're also supposed to provide transition under the suburban place type. If you look at the simple development map, the property to the east is rural neighborhood, which is large estate lots. So this lower density development that we're proposing between us and Sonoma Springs provides the easy transition between the traditional sized lots west of Pagosa and the area in the future. Role of neighborhood. It's important to realize that even though. Elevate Las Cruces allows other uses besides residential, it allows for some commercial. It allows for some family. It doesn't require any of that. Really want to make sure everybody understands that this. There's a distinction between allowing and requiring. So we're not doing anything that isn't required. This would replace Typekit recommends. Minimizing grading activity. Our. Project. Under engineer Mr. Will speak more about the technical aspects of our

development. But just in a in a broad stroke, there's massive elevation change west to east on this property. Our proposal would minimize grading. If you were to develop this as a traditional neighborhood, the entirety of the property would have to be. Grading lots of retaining walls and so on. And. Then overhead place pipe also recommends preserving the fellowship corridor, which we do. Does Sedona, Sonora Springs are all maintained. Just to clarify a couple of issues that were raised in the write up that you received from staff. Mr. Steve mentioned earlier that despite the fact that the write up indicates that mixed use development is being eliminated, that's that's actually not the case. There is no mixed use development in the area that we're proposing to be rezoned. It's letting respect selling. So you can select any of those, but it's not mixed in the sense of multi uses in the same lot or the same building. The question of the neighborhood centers is, I think is important to detail here. You know, the future development is not precise in the way those neighborhood centers are located. There is a neighborhood center located between us and north. Our justification letter indicates we believe it's a better use for that to be located on North Rise. Since North lies coming

down from the Army Drive Safe Online school. South on this drive to. North. But then you may be to that crime development corridor around North Rise. So we think that's a better solution since this. Since the shown on the map is more or less equidistant between the north. And east. Of north past the one at that is east of the boundary of our property that is east of the future mentioned. Only drive is does not show in the future development as bordering on property. It is east of our property. Even though we are not proposing any development within our property of the. Of neighborhood, there is still a possibility that a future developer could develop the eastern sections of that neighborhood center. If there's a market for that later. The last neighborhood center that's referred to in this general area is the one that's roughly between Sonoma Springs and Sonoma Springs. We recommended that it be placed at Sonoma Springs, since that's the intersection that leads to the East Mesa Sports Complex. Again, we think that's a that's a much better use. And of course, there's one far from one moment in which is far outside our

property. And I think the issue of what and how much commercial needs to be in this Mr. Corridor, how commercial needs to be built with all of the neighborhood centers, I think is an important one for us to touch on just a little bit. And what I'd like to walk you through is how will the Sonoma Boulevard corridor have developed or not developed over the last couple of decades? If you if you can picture driving south on so much of the first major intersection in this general area is Sonoma and southern Sonoma County, because there are four corners for commercial development. And in the past 20 years, not a single one of those corners has been developed to simply not a market for it. The next one is Sonoma Sedona Hills. That two corners east of Santa Branch Boulevard, not either of them has been developed commercially on the west. They're both residential. The next one is Sonoma Ranch Boulevard and Sonoma Springs. There you have the same situation. For the rest, no commercial to the east of commercial. Vacant. And long been developing multifamily similar to Sonoma Springs. Another one for almost all commercial zero development in

two decades. And lastly at number three quarters. Corner for one has been developed in the past 20 years. So I think this speaks to a couple of issues regarding what's. What's happening when the theory collides with reality. And, you know, in my experience, reality usually wins out. And the reality is, even though this building has been developed for 20 years, completely developed. In terms of all of the rooftops that would be served by commercial exist. In exist a polynomial time, there's been very little commercial development there. And what's the impact of that on the development on the city and on neighboring property owners? So the neighboring property owners have vacant in the vacant lead dust, etc. The city has no income from development, no property from vacant land appraised or valued at the lowest possible amount. From a developer standpoint, the developer sits on the land. For how long? Ten years? 20 years? 30 years. What's what's a reasonable length of time for a developer to hold on? That? No return on it? I mean, you have tried to sell property. You know, it can be. Frustrating. Your property has responded in a couple of months or every year. Figured how you'd feel if you held property for ten years. 20 years. I think one of you probably has that has known that

feeling, Commissioner Thurston. But it's just it's not a practical solution to. Over planning these areas for large amounts of. Commercial uses for which there's very questionable development. You look at some of our virtually any time, think of how much longer it's going to take for a la mesa Grande, my God, if ever, to be viable. So I think I think we just need to take a step back, realize that there's a there's a reality we need to face. And we're going to promise the best use for this property that we're proposing right now is for the north of its medium density property, south of Kaneohe. For larger amounts, given the terrain and what we see now is filling up for housing that wasn't that that hasn't really been built in the city in the last, you know, ten, 15 years. Anybody who wants that type of housing has been forced to go out into the county. So the city loses the ability to attract that type of, of housing within city limits. So we think it's an important. Housing type to include, and that's why we are proposing it for this area. Thank you for your time. Thank you. You want

to give a little bit. Yes. Thank you, thank you. This is a. Good evening, chair, Mr. Chairman. Commission, Paul Sutter Miller associates. We have to give is the truth and nothing but the truth of me. Yes, I do, thank you. Good evening. Commissioners, I share a few points to me from some of the engineering aspects that Mr. Moscato touched on, and then I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. First of all is if you've been at this site or looked at the documentation in your packet, there's quite a bit of grain in this project area, generally about 30 or 35ft across and 30 160ft of elevation change from east to west, and some of the other subdivisions that we have completed over more widely known North Hills. Five in that subdivision, which would represent about a fifth of this area, we believe, close to 400,000 yards of Earth, and there are eight and ten foot retaining walls throughout that development. So in looking at this area here, it has a higher topographic change across it. If we were trying to develop it to match housing patterns to the west, that is the kind of effect that it would take. And just an assessment of that cost, not respecting the topography, altering drainage patterns and things of that nature are just not worth the return by trying to develop that, I noticed that on staff, there was a comment or question about stormwater management. First of all, in the center area here, because of the city sports complex to the south, there was a recent FEMA mapping update for this property at which there was a flood zone, that area shown on the zoning

maps. With respect to that, we've cut that out, created a separate tract of land. So it will always be preserved as natural arroyo along the southern boundary, there is about a 30 to 35 foot elevation change right along the roadway there. And as noted on the. Zoning map, it's our desire to try to do anything with that. That ridge where they were cutting out further described as open space and just stay as natural terrain. With that. That is that is the main topics that I wanted to point out was the stormwater and the roads in some way. The stormwater management, because these are larger lots, we're proposing narrower roadways within the development. All that leads to a great decrease in stormwater runoff in a developed condition. So there will be no. Possibility of any impacts to the neighboring areas to the west. So with that, Mr. Chairman, that concludes the points that I wanted to speak about. I'd be happy to answer any questions at this commission might have. Thank. For going back to the comments to the commissioners real quick. I have a one of my bigger concerns lately has been the. Townhomes and the 27 news, and the walkability and mixed use and all of that stuff. And so do you. Do you by chance, know that the distance from where we have all of this open space already offers that connection to? All right. So if we take a done deal with that boundary of that, now we're talking about like the. Ten minute city and being able to be on bikes and be able to be walking on that stuff and protect those and things like that. But it appears we just see

the application. And first off, it seems like you went to back to the residential segment and you removed some of the commercial opportunities or the high density opportunities that are around. But as I'm looking at this, I'm starting to see that you still possibly have that single chance to still do all of your commercial site right now. Do you know what the walking distance is when you go out to walk, score for cafes or anything like that? Or what is the distance for that? So I would not be able to answer that. I do not know. Okay. And, and. Maybe I was planning with the realize this looks more like that. We do have sufficient median incomes. And then we over here off of opportunity with that in your opinion classifies as a component. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, the town center, walkability index or the threshold they tried to obtain. I can't speak to, but I can't speak to what I would say would try to in aggregate, I should say elevate. They tried to have a half mile walk shed. So from anywhere you remember and generally the area where we have mixed use, where you have possibly small scale retail, office, that kind of thing, they try to locate those within a half mile distance. The town center obviously would be much greater than that. The whole purpose is to really concentrate mixed use, but on a larger scale. I cannot tell you what I pointed out in the document,

what that threshold is 14 centers. But. That was really just after all of the things that we've been doing for the other clarification that we get. And the problem is, since this is going to be a, this is a. Rezone, and in comparison to others, that now this is not in the same as your eyes. That's Cruces. Is that correct, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. This is both a master plan and a central zone change. Requests that are being brought before you, and the applicant has asked that it follow the 2001 Development Code standards. So the zoning that is going to be designated and he doesn't, that he's not going to have the mixed use zoning. That you would see in the. Was. When we were starting to see that we have the mixed opportunities to put an end to everything. This is not this is going to be no. Definitely 100% correct. That's correct. Yeah. And I in my presentation when I talked about the splash zone or back end zone or the slash use. I indicated that one of the work the developer could develop within one of those land uses and mine, they could do one. They can combine them. They can combine all three. If there's three, if there's two, whatever. The point being is that with the land use designations and the master plan and the corresponding zoning on the zoning map, the zoning is there to facilitate the possibility for mixed use. They

don't have to at all. But the possibilities there, if they so choose. So okay, so then the. Amendments, if we wanted to use the words code that we wanted to commit to, is that to update the. Zone for the eyes. Mr. Chairman, commissioners, as per the document as provided. By any master plan that is approved under. For instance, 2001 standards. May we enjoy review and consideration of subsequent actions. Preliminary plats, final plats, etc. Under those same provisions, they don't have to go over to the new standards. In fact, it says that they will be reviewed under the standards that the master plan was approved under. Okay, so this one, this one basically is going to follow suit with the old code, correct? Correct. Okay. My second questions from commissioners Commissioner. For city staff, that stormwater management finally. Honestly, I don't know exactly what all detail that the next time. Well obviously the material that's out there now there's you're covered by the hard cap of the desert floor, plus the existing vegetation. So it's our intent, larger lot development that that the lots to the max they can be. It's just stays in its natural condition undisturbed with both vegetation and the soils that are on the surface, other areas that when the home developments

come in or when the roadways are up to use stabilization techniques where those cuts. But we would like, as we've looked and set paths on this area, as we've looked at development, we're trying to set those paths up in existing grades that that's at now, so we can keep earthwork to a minimum so we can keep erosion to a minimum as well. Same time. Yeah. Would there be phasing or phasing to worry about things that, you know, some major thought just kind of kind of developments happen? Well, it's our intent for the natural waterways that are out there now. Whether it's the world that's in a flood zone to the south or other areas farther north, we respect those areas and stay away from those with our development. So the. We're not going to be filling them in or realigning them. We're going to be respecting them and working around them. Thank you. I have one question. I just want to. And so maybe the role of the pedestrian bridges, how does how do you assess that kind of like doing things. Well, if we go to larger lots then then there'll be less traffic there. Some of the other techniques that could be used on a development like this, I don't want to get into specifics because we're not as far along in the design of that. Other aspects are to have a narrow road section that we have an offset trail as a route through the area to provide more pedestrian safety away from the roadway itself. Other techniques on larger lots is to mandate through the development standards of subdivision, additional off street parking and driveways and such to keep people from parking on the roadways themselves. So those are the kind of techniques if once implemented, then there wouldn't be a need to pay that 30, 35 or 37ft like you would normally see in a in a residential section where we can narrow this down to, say, 20 foot roadways. And they would provide appropriate access as

long as the pedestrian safety and off street parking was was provided for. And so this is for Vincent. But how do we potentially look at making sure that that gets implemented along the way? I suppose I might kind of just approve with non roads. So Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Coastal, this is the master plan process is the first step in the development process. Subsequent to that, there's going to be the preliminary plat and then the final plat construction drawings. So those latter stages are kind of where the rubber meets the road, so to speak. And that's when we know what they are proposing. That's when we go to additional review via DRC or Development Review Committee. And we have the standards in place already as to what they have to comply with. And any deviation to that is a request to DRC specifically. So that would be brought to your attention at at that time when those steps come forward for consideration by this body. Okay. Thank you. Anything questions or to those. I have a whole list of questions. I'll try to go in some coherent logical order here, but no promises. First, I think most of my questions was at the beginning are directed to staff. What is the overall difference in the potential number of housing units that would be constructed between what is

existing and what is being proposed? So, Mr. Chairman, commissioners, Commissioner Keizer staff did an analysis based on the data sheet or data. Habitat and city counts that they provided that the applicant provided for amendment for and compare that to amendment five. The lower housing count just assumes basically what they provide as the range of density for the planning purposes they reflect on their master plan. It takes into consideration. The slash use parcel. Planning parcels. So if they show a. Family density residential and. Multi-dwelling density residential, we would consider that parcel. The single family component was part of the housing count. Conversely on the high housing count, we would assume the multi-family or the medium density multifamily component. So when we took that information and calculated out in terms of number of units for the low and challenge, you get a range. Obviously they are providing ranging for a lot of breaker and still begin to say an amendment for 235 to 862 home runs. A number of based on that

information on the high housing counts, 235 to 1376, and then on amendment five of. Given that, it's below. Direct theater type of zone with a 230 on the low end and 552 on the high end. In both instances of amendment forward, those are potential for 3.97 acre for commercial and the possibility for additional pressure. What is you are going up to 1.22. Those are forward slash land use planning parcels which they may or may not build to that standard. It should be noted that in the 2001 code for commercial land, we could conceivably the proponents. That was not a consideration with these housing counts. We looked at it as both commercial. That's it. So in the amendment number five for commercial zero. Okay. Thank you. Anything else? Seems just like a significant departure from what they're currently have a very helpful. And that's all the entitlement. And it would appear there's plenty of flexibility that they can and cannot do so. Just sort of thinking about their you know, I think what everyone is making is that they're there's no market for certain types of development, but it seems like they already have some of the, of doing the things that they think benefit market realities.

Just in housing alone. And so it makes those components. It seems like there's plenty of flexibility there. Also, it's my question is. What why, why why this significant change. So that's that's a question I don't know that Councilor respond to that, but I. From staff's perspective, first, I mean, do you have a sense of. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Keizer from from this person's perspective, they have an opportunity to develop the land. And I think, I think they have an ideal to what they want to do. It's been conveyed through the DRC maps. The type of development we're pursuing. I think it was touched on here this evening and I think we're ready to roll with it. And it kind of flies in the face of what exists today. Okay. We're going to pose the question differently than this was amended. It was amendment four. What was the rationale for what ended up being approved? Mr. Chair? Staff's analysis basically that good question. I wasn't here during that time, but I can assume in like fashion, we have the potential for development in concert with what they were proposing. An amendment for amendment four was really to clean up a parcel that was outside the boundary for. This amendment five. So amendment four was smart clean up in an area that does not fall within the boundaries of five, but some of the others three,

two before that, etc. There was a matter of fact that provided some information in the packet that kind of described some of the changes in the history of those changes. And I just don't know that there's a lot of different opinion on how much acreage should be allocated to this. I will use, etc. You know, it kind of vacillated back and forth between amendments. But why that happened? I couldn't tell you. Okay. Thank you. And. There was a plan to improve the density in. That is in the building inappropriate for the surrounding neighborhood. And I just wanted to point out that actually the gross density for the family is 15 to 30 per cent believe is what is currently on there, right? I remember the I believe that's correct, yes. For the multifamily component. Correct. So basically what I thought was appropriate in this suburban neighborhood at this time that they were not that correct. Thank you. Going back to our question to add about the neighborhood. Neighborhood centers, I believe the question that you had was, what is the distance to the closest neighborhood center from this part of the development? Do you know the answer to that? I do not. Okay. So. Do you accept the staff except the rationality of the applicant put forward, that

is, in the neighborhood centers are more appropriate than what presumably would be located in this location with the unroll of their current amendment for Mister Chairman, Commissioner Keizer, the comprehensive plan is. Rather unique as it looks at neighborhood centers particularly. There's no religion that talks about the ability for the location neighborhood centers to shift slightly, and that's little context. And then there's another section that kind of implies that they can be relocated to a greater extent. So there's kind of two, two provisions, if you will, in that managing that conflict. So you're kind of right and wrong. I couldn't tell you. I could just tell you that the portion that I referenced as it relates to the three locations near this boundary certainly seems to imply that slight shift is warranted. It also says that in the neighborhood center context that this is above and beyond any commercial for any other neighborhood centers and any other town centers. So if you look at that language, then the distribution of neighborhood centers throughout the city is certainly implied. Okay. Thank you. I just to kind of pull out a little bit. So the neighborhood center is the end of the process is that these are walkable activity, things that of open plan shopping and

employment opportunities. And because of the recent developments over the. Millennium, such as information center from the National Health Information Program, which. So I can see how it affects this. You know, to find the best location. But I also counter that part of the whole reason why the neighborhood center is to provide alternatives that are more easily accessible by transportation modes other than the vehicle. Given the number of the closest neighborhood center is to this section of the development of having a place for that specific change will be consistent with Cruces I also know that this development is not beholden to the realization Cruces development that just took effect, but one of the central points of that effort was to create more mixed neighborhoods, neighborhood amenities, different types of housing. That was one of the driving factors behind. And I know that. According to that code right now. But I see a moment for that currently is more in line with what we just did than what they're proposing on tonight. I see this almost taking a massive step backwards, so I just want to I think, why what do you think is that there's a need for some flexibility there. I'm quite sure I see. And process. That tells me that they're being consistent or in line with the spirit of both, and the process that we just undertook with the development code. I also just want to point about, because the

came up that, you know, sort of dictates things that we do in these commercial development. And so it's also true that low density development, residential development undercuts the economic. Realities of commercial development. When you have a low density, dispersed population, you can't support those small neighborhood retail commercial centers. It just doesn't work. That's why we have to have as many strip malls. That's why you have to have the supermarkets, because that's the only thing that that can support a low density population. What I see with the minimum of four is an opportunity to actually increase the density and to make those. If we just sit here and say, well, the developer doesn't think that the commercial is ever viable, and we're just going to end up with spiraling residential and commercial development and make for services. So it is a balance for sure, but I don't think we can easily just dismiss that and say, well, the market doesn't support it and therefore we're just going to turn everything into a single family. Looking at the residential, the other thing that I need to point out is I want to talk a little bit about this. But I noticed in the staff report or any staff report, I think it was one of the exhibits. It would appear that almost. All. Many of the residential density requirements would be eliminated under this proposal. Is that correct, Mr. Chairman? Commissioner Keizer,

that seemed to be a theme in the latter amendments, but yes, that the memo goes away. It's just capped at a maximum. And that started, I think, for reflection of that. And if I'm not mistaken, three as well. So we find ourselves in that crisis. Why, why are we here? Before we went through several and never had an opportunity to do so at the moment for an affordable place by saying 230 is they can do less than that. And I remember reading my paper and starts to starts to think that I think, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Keizer. One of the important component to that is the zoning code and the densities that are outlined there. But if there was anything in density or I think they could be addressed in. More if there's anything else. Is that correct? That's correct. Just as an example, if we could limit. R1, C is intended to be that's that's one of the zoning zones that will pertain to the single family low density land use planning parcels that are being proposed. The other one, C, is intended to be an urban large lot type of development. It comes in at a maximum number of one, breaker at one, and that's

not uncommon for any of the zones that we have. The maximum density of that four. But that's not cool. That's not fair. That's in the 2001 development standards code. There's a maximum there's no minimum. So even if the master plan said there is a minimum, if the language remains, as is shown in 2001, that will still go below it because there's no minimum in this development standard table. There's a maximum but no minimum. Okay. Thank you. I think as for the last question is. Kind of preserving the historic arrangement. It seems like the arguments the applicant's making is that by it would also reduce the stream. Whatever it may be. Was there any consideration for any type of cluster development that would essentially achieve the same thing? In fact, our reduce the disturbance even more so if that was a central tenant in this update, was there any consideration for something like that? Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Councilor, it's funny you brought that up because that question was asked that came to mind, but it certainly wasn't part of the discussion I've had with the applicant or, and or the design professional. Paul.

Okay. Thank you. That's all. You. All right? Getting to public comment. And I got to find my sheet real quick. Drawn on 15 sheets. We're going to start on public comment. Will you would go from the front to the back. We're going to start on the left side. We're going to start on that front. And that's where we have public comments. Go ahead for the first row and then public comment. Raise your hand if you on the left side we don't have November 1st I'm going to. Swear you in. And also we're going to give you two minutes to talk. Thank you. Is that two minutes. Yeah okay. My name is Michael. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth? Undertaker. Well, yes. Thank you. Thanks, Commissioner. Chair. So up front, I don't live in this area, but my work does take me through there quite often. I used to live in Florida also. And next to that, and I had emailed a comment saying that I was kind of generally in favor maybe of this opinion. But also, you know, I have a lot of mixed feelings about it. The having the commercial there,

right in the, in the neighborhood is generally good. I think people should be able to go there and not be forced to walk. They can answer to a lot of the questions, the answers to models. I checked that on the map. So you can you can cross check me, but to the nearest commercial area I think that's that's quite a ways to have to drive for any sort of service. That said, put in denser development on the outskirts of town and forcing all of those people to drive into town where there's actually commercial development is not so great thing to be on it from a traffic perspective. And it does sound like there might be legitimate technical reasons. I you might have lower density in this area. Certainly having to move a lot of dirt is not an environmental friendly. There's different control issues. And all of that. And plus the low density development is also not real financially stable for the city. You know, it cost a certain amount for the city to provide utilities to a certain amount of road. And if you've got ten houses on that road, that pays for that stuff a lot better than if you had. Five houses or two houses. So long term sustainability is also a question. But moreover, I think that we should listen to the folks who live there and see what they want. Great. Thank you. So much. For. Hello, my

name is Vicki Hellwig. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth? I do thank you. First of all, I'd like to say that our family is supportive of these. This zone change. According to Mr. Banegas presentation, Sonora Springs and Pagosa Hills are currently considered minor arterial roads. This will undoubtedly change if this is further developed. We would recommend our family would recommend that Sonora Springs from Calle Abuelo east to Pagosa Hills, be modified to include medians and speed bumps, such as you can find on Key West of Sonoma Ranch. Therefore, we recommend that you. The Commission would vote for option three. That is to include these street modifications, but to approve it. Thank you. Thank you for the commission. Thank you. All right. So we are now on row seven. In addition. My name is Steven Valentine. I'm resident of the Sonoma Ranch area. These doesn't mean we got to go with the truth and the truth I know we have. I do thank you. I just have a concern about the tax base. Having fire and police be supported with these changes. Will there be an

increase of taxes, i.e. Like a mello-roos tax like they do in other suburban areas? Has that something that's been considered? We'll just take comments right now and I will address those afterwards. Okay. That's all right. Thank you. Thanks. Open left. Good evening. My name is Mary Watson. I am a resident of Sonoma Ranch East. And in answer to recognize the truth of the people. Yes. Thank you. In answer to your question as to how far this area in question is from commercial, it is approximately. My sister lives very close to. Sonoma Ranch, where you have a lot of commercial availability, but yes, nothing has been built up yet. So in fact, if you did, if you were to build up that commercial on Sonoma Ranch, this whole area, you could walk. It would be approximately 15 minutes from anywhere in the neighborhood to Sonoma Ranch. So give or take a depending on how fast you walk. So hopefully that answers that. I think it I think we're all happy. I think you can see that from the turnout today

that we carry very deeply about our neighborhood. We have invested heavily. In fact, for most of us, our life savings. And I would venture to say that the majority of people here are very much in favor of the passage of these plans as presented. Thank you, thank you. Everyone, when we bring it back, will be all right. Hello, my name is George NCO and I live. Oh. Go ahead. During testimony, we're about to hear the truth and nothing but the truth. And we thank you. Thank you. So I'm coming from the standpoint of a father of three young kids. We just bought a house right on the Rosa Hills. And I'm all for high density areas, but it seems like too many of the city's doing it backwards like they should have done that. They they need to do that in an area where it makes sense for there's not already a bunch of residential homes, like there was me and my wife and the kids to go through there, and I can just imagine commercial comes in like, that really is a walkability because that's a that's a big strength that Sedona has. That's like a great name. And I can just imagine that becoming super high traffic. So how do you think you're going to get this walkability thing that you guys want? I think high density needs to be more like a downtown area. Where there's more shops, you know. I don't just I can't get

in my car. I mean, I'm at one moment I'm at Starbucks. I don't think we really need that. I honestly think the walkability would be worse in that area. And I'm all for this amendment. Thank you. All right. We are now going to get everybody on the left side again okay. Hello I'm Linda Atwood. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth? The came down from heaven? I do, thank you. My concern is that I live in Sonoma Ranch East, right on in the neighborhoods that leave out onto Pagosa. We have one entry area into all of our homes in Sonoma Ranch East one, two, three, and four that go up Pagosa Hill, which winds up a hill and back down a hill. It's a winding little road, and the only way into our homes is Pagosa. There are trails all the way around the side walls all the way around the back on Cal Wall. There's no way out of our neighborhood except onto Pagosa Hills Avenue. If it got to be high density on the other side of Pagosa, it would create tremendous problems just getting home, just getting into our neighborhood, because we only have these little roads coming out onto Pagosa, and that's how we get home. That's how we get back. So we're very concerned that that would be high density across the road, with a lot of traffic coming and going and

keeping us from entering the road. Thank you, thank you. We'll move on to the right side of the property. Anybody from the first row and the fourth from. Hello, my name is Erin Lucas. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth? I need to thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you. I've been here before, and I would like to amend them for. And they added the commercial age 33 and age 32, which I thought was kind of interesting. But for years, as was pointed out, nothing's happened in Sonoma Ranch. If you want commercial area plus build something in Sonoma Ranch Boulevard, that's it. If you want this community center, build it Sonoma Ranch Boulevard. It's within a mile. Instead of putting off somewhere where it's because we're not interested. We love this idea of a very white area with a gradient kept low density, because we do have problems getting in, and it's seen from maps that were shown on a trash barrel in our area that the entrance and exit of both of those areas are going to be off Sonoma Hills Boulevard. Is that correct, or did they leave already? Yes. Is that correct? Yes, yes, that is correct. So we're all happy with it. And thank you for being here on the first day so late in the evening. I appreciate it. And that's about all the questions

were about. Is it going to be a gated community. Do you. No. Can you talk to them. Yeah that's it I just but he was here earlier and that was not soon enough for that. But thanks. Thanks for your time. Thank you. Bye bye. Thank you. All right. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth? The truth? And the truth? Thank you. All right. I want to add to the commercial zoning that the rest and hasn't been used. I'm. And at the corner of Cal and Cal, we're right there. There's a lot of things for sale for the five years I've been there. And it's nothing but an overgrown wheelpit. Nobody wants it. Okay. Grow what you have or sell what you have before you give something up. And then, in addition to what the lady said about the modifications for speed bumps. Okay, I would like to second there because. That's one of the cases are in Reno. And maybe it was because they have become race tracks. My home was pretty much at the corner of the loop of Dallas and. The idea you go up there right now and there are skid marks all over the place because people are out there using that as a drag

strip. Okay. We have right down the street, half a mile within your one mile range is the police department. We have no coverage. Thank you. I was going to go to your family member. That's on the right. That would like to. Okay, here we go. Come on up. Diane Starbuck, for the record, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth? I do, yes. I live on Petaluma Avenue, which is west of where Mr. Moscato is considering putting in the higher density. I would like to thank Mr. Moscato for rearranging the park situation. There are two small neighborhood parks, but they are both in the south neighborhoods and the northern neighborhoods. We can't really walk to those unless you want to spend some time. So to have a park on the north side would be really great for everyone who lives north of Cal Boulevard. I would like to second what the last gentleman said. There is commercial development. I did not see it on the map that was displayed. There is a letter on the corner of Cal Heights and whatever he said that was correct and it's been empty. I've been there seven years. It's been empty. And like you said, it's weed infested. If someone wants to do commercial businesses there,

that has always been there for them. I'm also concerned about if when this is developed, is Cal Boulevard going to be extended for the construction vehicles, otherwise they're going to have to be driving through neighborhoods. Petaluma or Azure Hills. Well, that's the only other way to get back into that area. Thank you. Thanks. Is there anybody else on the right? On the side, I guess I. Suppose. My name is Jeffrey Henry. I live in the East as well. If I have to get to the truth and the truth and the truth about. I was looking at number four and number five. Has anybody taken into consideration the river usage, that residence, and how it would affect the water usage and number of stone ranch? Got approximately 2000 residents that they're planning to move in there. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else on the right I believe. That will close. Public comment. I got one more. Here we go. My name is Janice Garcia and I live on Pagosa Hills Avenue. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony about the truth and

nothing but the truth under penalty of law? Yes. I'm just going to give my $0.02 here. I'm living on Pagosa Hills and. When we first moved into our house almost 18 years ago, I considered it a dream house for us. I was looking for something with views and we found one. Beautiful views of the mountains right outside our front door. When we are having dinner with our beautiful windows. Every time people come over to our house. What an amazing views! And the realtor told us, don't worry, they're not building anything here. This land, you don't have to worry about it. And so that was one of the selling points of why we purchased that home. And it took a lot of homes looking at many homes, because that's what we wanted. Also, the street in front of us, Pagosa Hills, we didn't have that much traffic. And of course, as Linda stated, all the houses there behind us in the area, they have to use that road to get to their house, which is fine. But other, especially now with the recreation center there, there are people driving not 25mph. A lot of we also have a lot of the vehicles. The that why when the desert out there that are going out their kids on their dirt bikes and they're just going crazy on the road, you know, it's ridiculous. I worry that there's going to be an accident soon out there. And that is without this proposal coming to light. So I'm just worried about our street, I'm worried about our neighborhood, and I don't want it to get worse than what it is already. So I'm also worried about the drag racing

that's going on. Those guys are good at it. They race two, three races are going to come and they take off. I just want the assurance from those who are going to be building. Thank you, thank you. Public comment I'm going to what the commissioners did they. Council. Yeah, I appreciate that. We continue to speak on this item. I just wanted to clarify a couple things. So can you just clarify the. What it means to not only density? Yeah. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner keizer relation to the master plan. Master plan, at least from the perspective of what the city of Las Cruces has done for a great many years is they typically will provide your low and high range for the variety of land use designations they propose and any given planning parcel. What I saw is this master plan is that through the various amendments, you you started out with high low and then they got away from the low, but it still you still have to point to the regulations and the zoning regulations in effect. So even in the master plan might not have a minimum. The zoning which ultimately gets approved

for whatever amendment takes place there, it is stipulated in page of the development standards. That illustrates the designations what the maximum density allowance is. There is no minimum density. So even though the master plan may or may not have a minimum, a lot of zoning coincides with land use designation. They can certainly develop to a low density standard, but not a higher standard. There's a cap, a maximum, but no minimum, so most of all, there's no. Affordable housing. So anything that's correct they could go below. Yeah okay. And in fact there is no requirement for them to build any multifamily. That's there's no requirement for high density multifamily development. That's correct. So as it stands today, there is no requirement that any type of high density development would take place here. There is at the discretion of the developer giving them the flexibility. So the fact that by not approving this amendment. Certainly. This towers are going to go up on the desert. That's not true. So that's why I clarify that. I also want to clarify, because there's a possibility that any of the existing rules. I believe it was progressive homes. The any if the developer chose to do any higher density residential development, again, there's no requirement. That's their place. But if they wanted to evaluate take place not only to those

homes, but often any sort of boulevard, so there wouldn't be a part of that, that. Of obtaining an opera house according to the current amendment number four. Another thing I noticed in the staff report, just a moment ago. So the table that you had provided an analysis of the neighborhood housing units. But also just and I apologize that the table before before is for you to understand. But there's also this proposed bill that over 117 that happens to be the same for the lower and the higher. So is 117 units with the with the applicant is proposing for development. Paul or John, would you like to share with us what the actual development is? I will defer to the applicant representative for that. Currently, we are looking at layouts that consist of approximately one acre lots, with a total buildout of 58. But I'm not standing here before you guaranteeing that that's what the final number will be. But that's that's somewhere that we're looking at right now. Thank you. And that's just in the amendment. Correct. 1358 I mean that there. Well, as we just a general question as we go forward with this language application and variances are to roadways and preserving topography and all those things. We one of those amendments, we have to have some certainty that that's what we can get to. And if we're struggling with high

density or we're suffering from all those things, there's no guarantee of a plan that's going to be approved by this commission, which may not be or may be others. So we believe that the zoning and the language should be complementary to what we're proposing to do on the property. But couldn't you accomplish the same? When I see their friends in here and it's basically a private event, I mean, there's a couple of little tiny persons from. Say, three about and he has his own group. And, you know, we just Mr. Chairman, we just believe that the application with the zoning change to remove some of the commercial properties, to set aside vast amounts of open spac, natural open space, recreation land and things like that, it's more complementary to our product that we're trying to do. Okay. Thank you. My final point is, is I, I think there are some good things to this. Application. I think there the parcel the park in relocated the additional open space, the protection of the waters. Those are all good things. I just I'm skeptical that the way we're going about it is. Okay. So that's that's just where I stand on things like there's already plenty of flexibility or if the goal was to do these very specific things and producing. Wind disturbance, increasing open space, addressing some of the other things that we that we just spent four years talking about and seeking to address

with the development community, it really falls in line. With, with just missing it. So that's just that's just me. It's one thing that I think there's other ways to accomplish the things that we're talking about tonight. Mr. Chairman, if I might just respond to a couple questions, I think that if you look at the aerial image, can you give me back to the aerial? Thank you. And as you're aware, I sat with you on those committees and we talked a lot about this. And a lot of those materials are very good. But I want you to take a good look at the area that's before you. This land was developed by. The kid back when 20 to 25 years ago. That was the development pattern. Mr. Moscato has purchased this land and given it to him and his other business partners have purchased this. This is a whole new way of looking at going from amendment four, which was under wonderful developers, going to amendment five, which is on a new development. Also, things have have changed in terms of the demand for a product. The people that you heard that live in the adjacent neighborhood, all of the concepts of having these clusters of commercial neighborhood uses, I don't believe can be supported by this land. And the people to the West have already bought into the development pattern, which they, they, you know, you've heard from them, they should be respected. And as we go forward into other undeveloped areas, I mean, look at the state land to the west. I mean, after most of Glendale farms and it will come some day, then there's going to be state land leases, there's going to be development, and you're going to see development on the adjacent lands one square mile at a time. And if we look back to this was a presidio,

which this area was knocked out and zoned. And so there's all kinds of commercial activities. But we believe that that would be based on a new development pattern. I just think we submit to you that this is the final area of Sonoma Ranch use. The developed countries have been set by previous development, and now we're just trying to get rid of a couple of steps down. So once again, respect for the property. So that's why we doing the application stand. And we stand before you and hoping that you'll approve it. I appreciate that that perspective is that for appointment we have for staff is even under the current or I guess the previous code, so that they would still be required to address things like building envelopes or. Correct. Still, the development standards that would protect the citizens of resources in their development of. Since this official open space reserve. Correct? That's correct. So I guess the point I'm trying to make is I think. We're undercutting ourselves and I respect Mr. I think they know that we can respectfully disagree with each other, and we have the tools by the Technical Advisory Committee for Cruces. So I think from my perspective, it just seems like builders just a different way to go about getting the same things. I also want to point out the zoning that currently there has been there for. When it was approved in 2008, that was what was said. So it's been there for a while. It wasn't. This isn't a surprise. 2020 2021 amendment where they increased. Not just okay, so it's been there. Yeah,

it's still been there since 2020. So I guess from my perspective, I just think there's other ways to accomplish the same goals within that. Rewriting it for the sake of providing it. Mr. Chairman, point of clarification. If you're Commissioner Keizer, if you're referring to the original approval, yeah, that would have been. 2000 and I'll say five. Which would have included the what? You what we're currently looking at. This is what some version of it. Yeah some version but correct. Another version of it. The original version. Yeah. I just wanted this question. Go to the go to the one part of the. View, which was a open space. Open space elevation. Yes. That's so. Yeah. That's all. That was. Is there going to be on the next steps to that for. Try and do anything on it. Because if I presume is it just we have today, we're going to have no trails so people can walk in. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, as it's currently proposed, the, the land use is designated as flood control and open space and natural conservation. Otherwise it has a recreational designation associated with the open space. And since it does not, I would assume, be prohibited. But it's not going to be any question. You said it

was a flood. If they started. Control, and it's just kind of the way. So thank you. That's all. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to make a motion, please. I make a motion to approve the proposed master plan amendment. And the Sonoma Ranch East two, amendment number five, case number. Two 4CS0500131. For. The corporate Caldwell. Was that correct question? So. Teach me on the process about what is a motion. So we'll just call for a vote. On just addressed or how would you go for that. Be willing to work with the. So I'll do a motion on the master plan amendment. The second reading on the zoning change. So it's on the case regarding the master plan amendment. Commissioner frozen. Yes, Commissioner. Yes. Clarification, I think based on the findings. I thought we would have to do this right. Is that okay, Commissioner? Yes. John. Mitchell. John. Yes. Commissioner. Council. No, I just don't think that there's any. Else here tonight to determine that this is consistent. References. Chair. Yes. Okay. Motion passes. This one is on the for the proposal for the zoning change.

Commissioner Acosta. Yes. Commissioner. Acosta. Yes. Commissioner. Casa. No. Based on the previous day. Without chair. Yes. Motion passes. Thank you. Move on to the discussion. Item 8.1, which is the discussion to discuss the amendment of the building. Are they running? This should be. Yes. Good evening, Chairman and commissioners. For the record, I'm Blair Flores with the City of Las Cruces economic development Department. We are here this evening to present the El Paseo and South Solano Metropolitan Redevelopment Area plan, which has been prepared by Site Southwest over the past year. The plan was shared with you in advance of tonight's meeting, and we hope you've had the opportunity to review it. To provide some context, a metropolitan Redevelopment Area or an MRA is a designated area

within a city that has been identified as physically or economically blighted and in need of revitalization. At this time, I'd like to introduce Danny Wilson from Site Southwest, who will provide a more detailed overview of the plan and its contents. Thank you. Blair, move this down. Can you all hear me? All right. Okay. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Chairman, commissioners, and thanks for making time for hearing this today. As Blair mentioned, the draft plan was shared with you a few weeks ago. So tonight I'm not going to go through the thing in its entirety. You know, it's about 160 pages long without the appendices. So I'll provide you with some of those highlights and really focus on what our recommendations are for implementation and next steps for city staff to make sure that this plan continues to live on beyond the planning stage, and has projects that are actionable for the city moving forward. I think I can control this, yes I can okay, so quick context and background here. For those who are new to the process. My name is Danny Wilson, as I mentioned, but I'm a planner with Sight Southwest. I was the project manager on this project. We also worked with three sub consultants to provide more context for specific aspects of the project. So Civic Plan Studio is our urban design partner on on the plan. They're they're no strangers to Las Cruces. They also helped us out with the East Lowman Redevelopment Master plan, and have been really instrumental in helping to illustrate the vision that the community has shared with us for this area. Rclco provided our market analysis, and so there's a good section in the plan itself that talks about the market potential for different types of development in this area moving forward. We know that this is being designated because there's been

a lack of the development that the city wants to see here. There's been a lack of forward momentum. And so we want to talk about what is most feasible for developers in the city to partner on in the future. And then lastly, we had Wilson and Company helping us out, providing our engineering expertise and specifically as it relates to transportation engineering, they were sort of our grounding partner to make sure that anything that we were thinking about in terms of streetscape scape redesign was really founded. And engineering principles, as well as the aspirational vision of what community members wanted to see on El Paseo, South Solano and all the connecting tissue that's there. So I wanted to highlight this briefly as the original MRI project area. This is what we started out with. But as you'll see as we continue through the presentation, we proposed a boundary extension that would pull that down to University Avenue to the south. There were several large vacant parcels in this area, as well as a little bit of that lack of redevelopment that we wanted to see, and we wanted to make sure that that was aligned with what we were proposing for the rest of the area. A quick look back at time. I can't believe it's been this long, but we started this journey last year in March. At that point in time, we focused on the initial site evaluation. We met with staff, we met with stakeholders, we hosted focus groups to get a good sense of what was happening on the ground today in the area, knowing that this is such an important area between downtown and MSU, Nmsu, and there's a lot of stakeholders who are invested in that area nonprofits, churches, neighborhood associations, we wanted to bring them to the table. And so in that next step, when we were looking at that existing conditions assessment, we conducted a workshop, a multi-day workshop with a lot of those members where we had a

chance to deep dive into some of the issues that we were learning about. From there, we took all those ideas and we tried to formulate our plan as well as our athletic projects through the winter. And then finally, we've been through this. We're about midway through the review process right now. So starting with staff, starting with key stakeholders. And now there's a public review draft available on the city's website. That is the one that you saw in your packets. So setting the groundwork again, there's a few reasons why the plan is really important for the city of Las Cruces. Ultimately, our goal is to provide a framework for the transformation of this area. We've seen it lagging behind other areas in the city. We want to make sure that there's a foundation there for the city to build on, to make this everything that it can be. We want to ensure that this is pedestrian friendly. That is something that came up multiple times in our planning process and is a high priority for community members moving forward. And I'll talk a bit about that later. And then we wanted to also make sure I wanted to emphasize these points of sustainable and equitable. It's one of the areas of the city that has the most diverse neighborhoods. You might imagine, with a wide socioeconomic range of people living there. We want to make sure that they have the same vital assets to creating healthy, thriving lives for their families that other families do in other parts of the city. And all of that. Our background is a firm, is founded in landscape architecture, sustainable development, green stormwater infrastructure. Incorporating a lot of these ideas into our concepts was really essential throughout the process. And then you'll see over there on the right side, just highlighting some of the focus areas of the plan as we were getting into it. And you'll see that carry forward as I talk about some of our catalytic projects. So this one I won't belabor too much, but I did hear a question in the audience about

what is an MRI. And so I wanted to just highlight quickly. It's a metropolitan redevelopment area. And what that does is it specifies an area for redevelopment projects that will hopefully begin to eliminate some of those blighted conditions that were identified in the designation report that was passed a few years ago. Some of these projects can include land acquisitions or building acquisitions if there's opportunity sites for the city, or for developers making some of those pedestrian and transportation improvements, which we heard loud and clear through our process, making improvements to community facilities, public spaces and parks and housing. And I will say, especially on that last point, the city is already making a lot of investments in this area, and so we're trying to build on that momentum in a lot of cases where we're focusing on certain nodes because it's a very large area. So you'll see that coming up. Wanted to also highlight some of the key tools that are benefits of the MRA designation. So once this plan is approved, the city can enter into public private partnerships to access additional funding and resources to make these projects happen. That's like the bottom line for us here. We want to make sure that the city has flexibility to incentivize development, where up until this point, we've just not had enough oomph and momentum to make it enticing for developers. So some of those tools are also highlighted over to the right side. It can take many different forms, and a few of these are already being implemented by the city, like the zoning code changes. I will say it was really interesting to move alongside this planning process, as realized Las Cruces was coming into fruition. So we had a lot of conversations with staff about, you know, what they were proposing and what we also thought would be helpful in the process. So we were really grateful for that open dialog through our planning process.

This one I apologize, this is a typo on my part. This should talk about some of our engagement tools, but I mentioned we had some of those listening sessions and focus groups early on. That community Design workshop was a really incredible time, honestly, where we saw community members coming together and expressing their desire for what the vision of this space could be. Many folks lived in the neighborhood, but there were also folks who were employees in the area, or who shopped or conducted business in the area, who participated, a few who are in the crowd. I noticed this evening, so glad to see that representation. We had a community survey that was conducted through the winter. We wanted to take some of those ideas we heard and make sure they were right, or begin to tease out some more details there. And we had over 2000 responses, which I will say credit to communications and outreach teams at city staff and everybody who told their neighbors about it. We had some creative ideas for that, but ultimately there was a lot of energy put into that to get the responses that we did. And 32 of those were in Spanish, which we were pretty happy with. It's still kind of a low number, but given the household composition of this area, it was something. And then finally we have that public review draft open now, and we're using a hopefully more interactive tool so that it's not too cumbersome for people to look through 160 pages of a document. We have sections that allow them to jump to the different chapters, or you can even search by keyword, say you're really interested in pedestrian safety. You can find where that's discussed in the plan easily using the tool. So hopefully we get some good responses there. This is really small, so I apologize. You probably can't read it very well, but I wanted to just highlight some of what we heard in terms of the top priorities for redevelopment in the area from the community. And number one, was the focus on safety and security. Maybe no surprises

there. This is something that is very it can be a part of your day to day experience. As you're in a space, it can impact how if you go into a business or not, if you're a student walking from school to a restaurant up the road, all of that comes into play. And so we have recommendations that are targeted toward addressing those concerns with both the business community and the neighbors, as well as Lcpd. Number two, and this is probably, again, no surprise, the transformation of El Paseo Road is number one in everyone's minds because this has been a part of the public dialog and conversation at this point for decades. It's really been a long time coming, and so we're hoping that this plan gives you and the city staff the momentum you need to make that happen, and hopefully begin to identify some of the resources to do it. We know it's not going to be a cheap project. This is going to be a huge investment by the city. So hopefully we've given you the foundation to get there. Broader focus on neighborhood improvements was also prioritized, as well as thinking about our business community. What can we do to support them here, especially those small businesses that, in spite of maybe some of the safety and security concerns, have really stuck it out and want to make their investment worthwhile here. And this is also kind of hard to see the previous presenters doing the zoom trick, which I may or may not be able to do, magnify slide. We might be able to get in there. So essentially what we wanted to do was actually I'm going to jump back out. I'm going to go through the bullet points first. What we wanted to do overall for this area is reinforce El Paseo as that primary corridor and connection between downtown and Nmsu South

Solano is also very important, but it's not the same high sort of institutional commercial use. It's more of that mom and pop shop style commercial, which actually has a really good baseline infrastructure to work with. We think there's a lot of good things happening over there. And so really El Paseo is the one where we're focusing a lot of what we're proposing as initial investments. We want to encourage a mix of commercial and housing around here. In some cases, there's examples of that already happening with some multifamily projects going in, but we want to build on that, especially between the roads of Campo and Idaho and even stretching that down a little bit to bouts in the high school, but especially Campo to Idaho. There's real opportunities there. And as I mentioned, South Solano already has a good physical fabric to work with. But we want to think more about local business support along that corridor as a possibility. And there are a few more points to make here. Valley View Park is already seen some improvements. There's some funding available for master planning there. And so we want to build on that. We want to realize that as low hanging fruit and also make a pedestrian connection, ideally using the Las Cruces Arroyo over to Young Park Young's Park. Excuse me, in the northeast. So creating a nice green corridor for residents to access these facilities as well as the library, the Munson Center and Valley View Elementary that are on the west side of there. And a lot of, I should say to the family services that are going in with the Boys and Girls Club and FYI developments as well, we've identified a few key infill sites for future development that we'll talk about. On the next slide, we want to make sure we're reinforcing neighborhood identity. Some neighbors have this strong sense of neighborhood identity already, and we want to support that in

areas which maybe don't have that same kind of identity or attention yet. We want to use those drainage ditches for trail connections and then finally address those safety concerns. And I realize we're running a little short on time. So I'm going to scoot through these next few slides. So as I mentioned, the area itself is very large, over 1200 acres we're talking about here. And so in order for the city to get the most bang for its buck, we're recommending focusing on a few of what we're calling opportunity nodes. So the first being the brickyards district, this is kind of taking a fun play and a name for the Featherlight brick area that is just north of Valley View Park there, Paseo Verde is the new residential development going in kind of in the core of that second zone near the library, near the senior center, near those family Services Boys and Girls Club. FYI, number three is looking at kind of our higher density residential areas and a few projects that are going in there, slash one that's moving out and offers a nice palette for a potential new residential development in foster, Montana. These areas are also important because they offer really good walkable residential areas to that commercial that's offered on El Paseo. And so we want to think also about safe connections and safe crossings in order for people to safely access those. And then finally, the French-German Gomez parks area or university residential. There's some nice parcels and opportunities for partnership actually with some of our faith institutions in that area who could help to spur more of that development that we want to see in the mirror. And so we have a set of strategic recommendations that are organized under these categories of public safety, housing, transportation and mobility, community places and

programs, which is kind of a broad umbrella for a lot of neighborhood improvements, park improvements, community facilities, economic development and sustainability. And I encourage you to take a look at those in the plan. I don't have a ton of time to go into detail on those tonight, but there's some good substance there. And if you have comments or feedback and then we definitely welcome them. And then finally, I wanted to walk us through some ideas for where we can get started. And I also have a few organizational capacity recommendations in addition to these projects, these physical projects. So I'll touch on that briefly at the end. So number one priority is El Paseo transformation. And there's a lot of work and resources that needs to go into this to make it happen. But luckily we have a very strong foundation for what the community wants to see here. And we have good alignment at this point and support from other planning projects that the city has conducted, both that are specific to El Paseo and then broader city plans. So in order to do this, we kind of walked through some of the steps of conducting that feasibility study and creating the schematic design. Looking at multiple options, we offered very rudimentary design options to get a to take a temperature from the community on what they wanted to see here as part of our planning process, but ultimately, it's going to need to go through the full design process with an engineering firm to make sure that that is aligned with what the city wants and what works well for property owners there as well, because it's going to take some some convening and a lot of conversations with property owners because we're proposing some changes there. Finally, those recommendations would go through council for that preferred preferred design option. And then using that, we could identify funding sources for the next phase of work and then proceed with engineering and construction. And we note this in the plan, but we know

there's already funding allocated for some intersection improvements at Idaho and El Paseo, as well as boats and El Paseo, or at least that's been targeted and CIP. And so we want to try to, as much as possible not backtrack on that work, but align those intersection improvements with work on the corridor in those sections. This is tangential to that. But ultimately, as we begin to redesign the street of El Paseo, it opens up opportunities for infill development that could be mixed use along the way. This is something we saw strong support for from both businesses and residents in our process. This would allow for not only the creation of that pedestrian safety that everybody is looking for, but it could also allow for additional tax options and opportunities for the city itself, rather than letting land sit more vacant or parking lot. It's something that is kind of a win win for the city. It would take, like I mentioned, that strong collaboration with current property owners to make sure this is successful, to make sure that it's aligned with the vision and ultimately could meet the needs of the current infrastructure that the city has in place there. And I think that's all I'll say on that, because I know I'm taking up some time here. South Solano, as I mentioned, was really focused on supporting those existing businesses that are along that corridor. We heard from several of them who mostly were were concerned about the safety of the area and wanted stronger partnerships with Lcpd, wanted some physical improvements to just make sure things like lighting, you know, design assistance with their properties was in place just to make it more feasible for them to stay, because that was the biggest concern was like, if something doesn't change, we might not be

able to stay here for longer. And that's the thing is, it's much harder to attract a new business, it's easier to keep an existing one. And so as much as we can prioritize that, the needs and concerns of those existing businesses, that's going to be good for the city to do. We also recommended reviewing the permitting process for some of these businesses to make sure that standards were flexible enough, that it wasn't too cumbersome for them, but also was adhering to what we were seeing as important design principles for pedestrian safety and comfort along the corridors here. And then finally, we wanted to just make sure that there was that cross coordination across city departments to think about potentially organizing a business association of some kind. There's not always an appetite for this, and we recognize that it is a lift for staff. And so this is something that is if there is demand there and if the capacity for staff opens up, this could be something that could be really helpful to have one voice from the business community, rather than having sort of dispersed concerns and things happening, and not a good way to consolidate that. Valley View Park activation. This was, again, like I said, kind of the lowest hanging fruit of the bunch. There's already investments happening here, and so it's just a matter of aligning with that, getting residents to the table when it comes to the master planning process and making sure we have our partners there as well. So Elephant Butte Irrigation District has been very supportive so far in our conversations of thinking about the overall potential of our drainage spaces and water corridors. They are on board with thinking about trail connections and recreation opportunities. In addition to that primary purpose of moving water safely through our communities. And then finally, we were just thinking about

activation of these spaces. And so there are some ideas within our community survey responses about activation and programing that is also relevant in terms of recommendations for staff, especially on the neighborhood side. In Phillies redevelopment. This is one of those things that we can't be too spread out in how we're thinking about this. We really tried to be strategic in the sites that we offered as having the most potential for the city for redevelopment, so looking in that Brickyard's district, the Featherlight property near the Valley View Park, thinking about building off, there's a few vacant parcels that are around where the Boys and Girls Club and F.y.e. Are going in that really could create this potential gateway to El Paseo at Campo, South Wyatt and El Paseo. Real potential there. We want to make sure that we're facilitating that by working with property owners and being as flexible as possible. When we're thinking about future development at these sites. But then also we're we're helping them along the way. So if they don't have the expertise or skills, we were thinking about how we could expand or uplift the work that the Design Review Committee is already doing to perhaps offer some special assistance when it comes to design, and making sure that that design is aligned with what the vision is for this area, for the MRA plan, and then finally, with the updated zoning, this is kind of already in place. The zoning really is aligned with what we see also as a vision for this area. So that's pretty much good to go. And then finally we thought about creating a concise housing resource guide for potential developers. And I will say this is not our idea. This came from staff. And so staff is already thinking about how do we facilitate the kind of development that we want to see. And this is one tool that could help with that. Public safety

improvements. This one's a tricky one, but Lcpd is already doing a lot of work through Community Outreach team. Talk to us about a lot of the programs that they already do, like the bike rodeos, the pop up events. And so I think a lot of it comes down to visibility and public education and frequency. So really just continuing to do what they're already doing, but making that connection more concrete, especially with local businesses. I think that could go a long way. We thought about there's a small parcel right between Frenger and Gomez parks that actually could be optimal for a potential future police substation. This is a many years down the road thing, but we know there's a lot of concerns around the parks there, and there is a bit of a gap there as well in terms of those types of services. And so we would offer that as a consideration for a future police substation. We wanted to make sure that we were partnering again with those business owners to potentially establish private security that would complement the police presence. So thinking about programs where you could have that virtual presence and security to expand the capacity of our in-person police force. And then finally, there's physical improvements. So thinking about safety that comes from having better lighting on in the evenings, better shade sidewalks, just improving the overall experience of the public realm so that people feel better and safer out there. Moving, moving around. As I mentioned, trail connections. I won't belabor this one too much, but there's already plans in place for some of these water corridors, and so we are all on board with doing that to make sure we have those nice separated pedestrian connections. There's one that goes east west and north south. And so we would we would advocate that both of those be implemented for neighborhood and community placemaking. We again just want to we heard from

neighbors that they a lot of them have ideas for what they could already do to improve their areas, but it would really help to have some extra city capacity to help them carry out those ideas. So cleanups and property improvement days were something that came up, something as simple as a neighborhood signage program can really go a long way. There were thoughts about partnering with the students from Las Cruces High School, maybe the woodworking shop, who could support that, and you could bring that together for both of those groups. And then finally just making sure, again, it's tough when you have an all volunteer association. And so having a little staff capacity to support those neighborhood associations could go a long way in just creating continuity for them. And then before I jump to questions, actually, I did promise I wanted to jump a little bit into where we recommend that the city should start with this. And the first was in the capacity organizational area. So ultimately none of these projects can happen without people and resources behind them. And so we did recommend that for the future. Championing championing of MRI projects that an MRI committee or something like that be created that would work with staff, that would look at not just the summary plan, but future MRI area plans to determine what projects to start with and champion moving forward. Ultimately, City Council would still be the final approver of those projects and those recommendations, but having a dedicated group with representatives from local institutions, neighbors, developers and the like could be really helpful in keeping the momentum on this work going. The second was making sure that we're including that expanded MRI boundary area that goes

south to the University Boulevard. So we want to make sure that as part of this process, we're including that so that we're not backtracking and going back to include that. So we're proposing actually re reworking that that new boundary into the MRA plan so that when we go for approval of the plan overall, we could also designate that new area at that point in time. And I think that's about it. I know I've been talking for a while, so I think I will jump and open it up for questions. So thank you. I can start I'll probably be short, but I guess. Yeah. So it's this initial concept of planning. You know, the Commonwealth is just, you know, having those in the downtown area, having lived in that area for a long time and I progressively worse, exponentially worse over the last, you know, five years, ten years, we can continue to go on. So I appreciate the smile and the enthusiasm, but it sounds like lipstick on a pig, just to be blunt. Right. And so the problem now is safety. I mean, you can talk to all the business owners, go look back at the. Governor. Lujan came down last summer. And the list of grievances that were that. Ever heard of. So to remember you know still struggling beyond that. And so I mean, in terms of response time from, from police to local businesses, I currently struggle with that downtown. I mean, I know many people have have just about given up, you know what I mean? It's like people wanting to just balance themselves. And, you know, residents are frustrated and then you have the animals and that's not right. But it's a couple blocks away. And that just leads to a flood of

unfortunately, you know, traffic that is just have has caused a lot of issues. And I, I feel for those people and I feel for that, but I also feel for the business owners and the homeowners and everybody trying to go to Albertson's and walk in there safely and not feel afraid about their family or their car or whatever else is going on in that area and everything else. And so I don't necessarily know how to propose that we need to start there before we start dumping them onto anything else. But, you know, that's that's like my question is how how do we make that, you know, step one, before we start thinking, you know, all these pictures and these visions of these nice things, when, you know, last year this has been a problem, this has been on record, a problem for our city. And, you know, that's just that's that's my big concern here. Yeah. No. And I think that's exactly right. Like you're echoing exactly what we heard from businesses and residents like over the last year. I think that the MRA plan by nature needs to be holistic. And that's why we're thinking about all the aspects of what it will take to transform this area. I think public safety is essential to that. That's foundational, but it also includes the physical transformation and the vision we want to see, not just for the next five years, but for the next 30 years for this area. So that's also why we've included a lot of the physical developments and projects that we have. But I think you're right. And I will also say there's no silver bullet. We're coming at this from the angle of physical and economic development, but there's a lot of work that's going into this from the human resources, from the neighborhood services side, from a lot of the folks who are working in that area. One of the things we did as part of this process was we handed out fliers and talked with people as part of a food drive in the in the area that we did in coordination with real life church. And so I, I see that there's a lot of need

there. And I will say that the MRI plan can't do it all realistically, like we are one aspect of this, and ultimately we will not be the final. The final say in terms of public safety response. All we can do is make recommendations for how the city might begin to approach that. When thinking about how to holistically transform this area. But I understand what you're saying, and that if that doesn't happen first, it's going to be very difficult for these other things to happen in terms of transformative projects. So I appreciate what you're saying, and I think that something we can do is begin to revisit that. This is draft form. And if there are areas that we can improve and beef that up, we'll do our best. But I would also say this is a plan for the community. This is a plan for staff. This is a plan for leadership, but it's going to be housed within economic development and community development too. So also just thinking through the lens of like, ultimately, what can those staff do to help transform this area is something to consider. Yeah, I mean, to the onboarding process for the windows to get broken and all those things to happen. And people have all kinds of time and money, and we're not solving the crime issues in that area. I mean, we're just we're just not doing it. And so that was thank you. Yeah. No, I appreciate that. To piggyback off of my fellow commissioners, I think public safety is, as we all know, is number one fundamental. Number two is how do we attract those businesses, how do we attract those small local businesses? We need to throw incentives. We need to help grow. Instead of being a city of anti-growth, we need to be a city of growth and invite everyone in and say, let's do this. How can we help you grow your business? Whether you're a small local business or you're a big corporation? I think we just really need to do that. I think we have a stigma here in Las

Cruces that we're not a city. If you have a business, you don't want to come here and you don't want to grow because, you know, there's zoning issues. There's I mean, there's I can go on and on, but we need to open up our doors and be business friendly. Bottom line, whatever that looks like. And I think with small businesses, we need to initiate some incentives. So public safety obviously is number one in the court for our residents here and then growing businesses. I mean, you can build a beautiful portal and invite people over. But if you don't have businesses to support that, then you're going to look at disasters. Definitely. And I will say on that note, we do have recommendations for programs that can be funded through the MRA to support businesses. So exactly to your point, it's attracting new. But also how do we provide some incentives and some rewards to those who who have stuck it out and are trying and want to stay? Yeah. And then reaching out to our local organizations, I mean, I can name a couple and I'm not trying to, you know, just in general, I think there's a lot of them out there. But the greater Los Cruces chamber, for one, is pro-business. You've got Hispano Chamber, you've got many, many organizations out there and a lot of leadership that are pro-business. And if you were to just set them up in a room, you would you would get great ideas. Yeah. And I will say so. We've met with several folks from the chamber, and they were also invited into our workshop. And so we had representatives there as well. So we yeah, we're trying to incorporate all of those ideas as much as we can. But yeah. And thank you. Yeah. Thanks. Yeah, yeah I'll just echo some of the previous comments. But I do want to emphasize I think you you said a couple of times in different ways, but this idea

director has improved the public. Experience in public health. And I think a lot of the issues that were identified in the. Questionnaire that that you have shown, while not everything is 100% attributable to an a physical environment or what and how we feel the space does affect. That, right? So, so development officer, for there is nothing to for the end of the day. I think at the same time, if people start to think about the outside, they find a safer there's things to do. There's public parks, the parks have amenities for confident and you take ownership in this space that goes a long way. It's the silver bullet by any means. But I think people underestimate how how much that actually affects a community's success. And when you look at some of the most successful communities up and down the west, across the country, they all have similar things in common. And that's a built environment that is built for people, whereas episode is built in the closing moments. And it's been several reports that we have in our corridor that was cast into design, it's how we essentially got to where we are. This is an unsustainable way to develop. It's unsustainable for so many reasons. But when people start to feel unsafe and comfortable in that space, and now when we go further to say just the public right of way, but also the spaces that are open to the public property, you know, standing in the middle of a freaking parking lot without shade for one in the other direction is a miserable experience for anybody,

especially in any circumstances for them. So how do you feel about what we do to improve that? I think we're, we're being very different direction. So I also just wanted to say thank you for this report. This this document is refreshing to read something like this from citizens Cruces. I really enjoyed the attention to detail, and it showed that you guys have really great ideas. And it's not just deal with the whole project team. And we thank the city for selecting this team. They're the right team for the job. A lot of the projects I read sort of breaking down with larger area or small neighborhood, I think. I think overall I would enjoy reading it. So thank you. I am a little nervous that when it comes to the residents, the road, we seem to struggle on this, right? We're told that this is just a vision. It's just it's conceptual, but it's the concept we all buy into. So why we can't apply that when we have project developments and applicants come before us? I definitely understand. I mean, most things conceptually. If there was change in shape that. You won't be disappointed when I show up and it's salads and pizza place conceptual, it kind of doesn't make a lot of sense. Right. So I'm a little concerned about that. Specifically some of the things that that we didn't see get through. And I think this body up here in Minnesota, where we see drive thrus in the urban core, which we have this area between special use permits, nothing that was that didn't make it. So we're a concerned that we're going to

see businesses that see opportunities and want to come in, and it's going to be great. We want to welcome them into what things will look, all these things. And when they put them in occupation and it's more it's the same for development, which is exactly where how we got here in the first place. So I'm concerned about that. I don't know what the city's plan was to address something like that, but I have a concern that it just this is great, I love this. Let's go make it a reality that. So that's just one component, another component of this, one of the projects that was the Arroyo corridor framework. Currently. Right now that is a great opportunity for potential storm water retrofitting, which I think this concept. Absolutely could be something that fits the criteria. I'm happy to report that the market conditions, but that's happening right now. The deadline is coming up, but we're still. Working with the minister of. I think there's an opportunity right now to maybe do something through one of those. So I think those are just my comments. I'm very excited. But I do have some reservations about how we see this become a reality. Yeah. And I appreciate those comments. And I will say, I'm glad we're coming to you at this point in the planning process, because we still have time to clarify or dig into those things that that might just help us bridge from plan to reality. So I appreciate that

comment. Thanks. My question is why? Why is a land developer and a business owner? Why would I care about using MRA versus just buying a home that's already vacant land and I can develop it just using the real life? Why would it? Why would I want to come down to downtown? And that is already known for struggle, right. And by the business and labor that they been in business deal like that, why would I what is it about my area? That I would be interested in? Like why would I want I'm going to actually jump back a few slides because there are some incentives that the city can use to help to make that case. So I think you're exactly right when you're looking at my potential development, residential development, say, in the core of the city of Las Cruces versus maybe a, you know, a suburban area like we were looking at earlier or even in the county. You know, why? Why choose this area over one of those? And I think the answer lies somewhere in here. One might be you actually have a this doesn't always happen, but sometimes you do get these community minded developers, especially small scale developers who believe in the area, who want to see it come to fruition at a small scale. We've seen some residential projects happen like that. These won't be your large scale developments, most likely, but in other places that has happened. I moved here from the city of Detroit about six years ago, and that was something that was more motivating than you would realize. But I will say that's the exception and not the rule when it comes to developers. I think where the rubber hits the road for a lot of folks is in these tools that we see on the right hand column there. So there are ways that the city can enter partnerships, say there's a publicly owned

property that they really want to you want to see developed. You might be able to enter into a partnership with a potential developer at a lower rate. Then they would get in another area. There's also the opportunity to create a Tid here or a tiff here. And we talk a little bit about in the plan about the differences between Tiff, Tids and bids and what might make the most sense for this area. There's already the template for the downtown Tid in place, and so that's something that might be an opportunity here to provide additional funding for some of these projects to happen. For some of those developers to go in. There's other things that we could do in terms of industrial revenue bonds, creating some some additional programs that would support that development. Yeah. So I just wanted to highlight that there's a lot of things. Right. So we have tax incentive to go downtown. Yeah. And we want to go downtown. So is there is there a. You do I mean this has been a lot better right. The city did have a lot of imagery to look at right. Yeah. I mean it's a big market that. Yeah. And I guess the only other point that in terms of I love what you've cleaned up, which is the beautiful attracting better, you know, people. But again, as the violent crime statistics have 42% increase since last August, downtown being a major focus, downtown has got the revitalization. And it's still a sketchy place to go walk. I wouldn't let my little brother, you know, go and play on the parking without being. Absolutely paranoid. I mean, they're out there every single day like it's bad. And I mean, that's not going to change even if you make it better. Yeah. So do you have any examples of. More of more of like how the

rubber hits the road because you've got maybe a revitalized place in Houston that used to just be the big box stores, and now you got the big box stores that have now shifted to different developments. Right? And then, you know, I think we'll need some, I guess, as a developer. Okay. We're going to give a seven story line that it worked somewhere. And where did they start. Because I see these as one of the top incentives and stuff. But we're like I, I would still personally I don't remember the battle. Yeah. Like just because they got a tax incentive, the rest of the area we have people right now that come in and say, you have commercial on the other side of town because we don't want to go down there. And so then the business over here, because I keep getting better. So there is I that's what I'm trying to say is just because we, you know, what is it? What incentivizes me to depend on them. And I don't think it's good for the city to just put more taxes in because then, like in development, we need to put more meat on the bone for the city. Right? Like the city needs the tax, the tax increase. But if we just if I incentivize you to come put your buildings in the video, I'm not going to receive any incentive for taxes. Then how do I have more money to do more things? You actually, given away because it's just a Band-Aid again. So I just yeah, I'd love to be able to see some type of a example where it worked because, I mean the examples and see where it's work. That's just I like to think also as a developer, I thought, hey, if I do a plan. Whatever it is, here's here was a success plan and this is how we do it. This is how we got rolled over. This is how we got

rid of the. Basically the bad situation. And hopefully we get back to it I don't know. Yeah. No. And we can definitely work on some case studies. I and I can't remember if it was in the plan yet or not, but one that we talk about that's local or local ish. Local to Albuquerque is the sawmill district, if you all are familiar with that. Took decades to get there, but this was an area that was very industrialized, close to the freeway has been enormously successful at this point in terms of having started with city partnerships and a nonprofit, the Community Land Trust, that's there. And then from there, we've seen this ballooning of development, private developers coming in now and on their own without that city help making projects happen. And so one, one local example that comes to mind. But I do think you're right in that if you are a developer looking at this, you're like, well, why should I? And where has it happened and been successful? And so I think that is something that we could add into the plan still. So I appreciate that. Oh yeah. For sure. Oh actually. And I'm going to defer to staff real quick. Hi Blair Flores again. So just to answer a couple of the questions in terms of what areas are doing for areas like this. So New Mexico is an anti-donation state. And so municipalities are not able to help businesses directly designating these areas as emissaries give municipalities the power to work with small businesses and create public private partnerships. But also what we're learning through the process of looking for funding and grants is that we qualify for a lot more funding opportunities because we have

designated these areas as MRAs, and we can again work around the Anti-donation clause. So it opens up a lot of funding opportunities that we don't necessarily have for areas that are not designated MRAs. As Danny mentioned, Albuquerque has been probably the most successful within our state for MRAs. They have 20 plus MRAs. Many have been extremely successful. We have already, within our department, started reaching out to other municipalities within our state to learn from their processes of what's working, what's not working, what are some funding opportunities? What are some needs within our department? We've already started discussing potential programing to address some of the needs. I personally met with over 300 business owners within the Paseo del Solano MRA. I conducted surveys with all of them. I listened to a lot of their concerns and grievances and I feel like what we heard in Danny's presentation is a true reflection of what I heard. And so I specifically have been, have been looking at programing opportunities and funding opportunities to directly address some of those needs. And public safety is one of them. Within our department, we've looked at some of those programing opportunities and said, okay, how many how many programs can we create that addresses public safety? How many can we look that addresses housing needs? And so that that that is all that we are taking into consideration that is developing. But that is the work that's being done behind the scenes to take all of that into consideration. So yeah, the funding opportunities are great once an MRI is designated. And that's the biggest distinction in our ability to help small businesses directly. What I also would like to say is that just in our public outreach and the

public meetings, we've heard from a lot of interested small businesses and organizations that want to know what potential incentives are in the area. And they may not be big box commercial businesses, but a lot of small local businesses that are like, I need help getting my business off the ground. So what can you offer me? And so, so yeah, there is interest already and that's very exciting. But hopefully the catalytic projects will start some interest in the area and see that the city is putting money into that. And also I think because of the funding opportunities that MRAs provide, that also is a huge factor into the MRA plans, not just sitting on the shelves. We have a lot of funding opportunities with the designations that hopefully will push these projects forward, and obviously that our department, it is a priority. So hopefully that answers some of your questions. So do we have money allocated already earmarked specifically for this project already or are we just is it in progress. So we have already been working with Tax and Rev for all six designated areas to begin the baseline for GR. We are working to begin the property taxes process, not to get too much into the weeds of that, but we those processes have already. We're starting to work on those. So that is just one opportunity. And then we have been working with our grants department and then again looking at programing and potential funding sources as well. So we don't we currently don't have any earmarked money yet. We're just working in progress other than the GR baseline. And that. Go ahead. Go

ahead. Good evening everybody. I'm Elizabeth Teeters, the economic development director. So actually the Blair is correct. We did get $100,000 in this year's budget, just approved to do a kind of like pilot programing to start taking these ideas that Blair has and bringing them to fruition to see what works and what doesn't work, because we understand there's going to be tax increment, but it's going to take it's going to we saw it in downtown. It takes a while to get the taxes and get everything moving. So we're at least getting $100,000 this year to kind of get things moving and hope that we can kind of get the investment in there to start getting things really going. Thank you for the clarification. Yeah. Good afternoon, Natalie Green. For the record, I'll also add that we did receive $1 million from the state of New Mexico. We are using that to jumpstart one of the housing developments. And that will bring about $15 million worth of investment to Las Cruces to build the first phase of Verde. So that's 80 units of affordable housing, 20, which will be set aside for veterans. And then the other 60 is for our workforce working along the corridor. So that's some additional investment that we anticipate. So I have one additional question to follow up on that, if I may. So is that complex city owned or is it private owned with partnership with the city? It would be public private partnership. So the property currently is owned by the city, but we will be transferring that to the developer who will then own the development. Just a follow up question. So I noticed in the report talked a lot about how the opportunities are I guess the economic environment is not necessarily right at this

moment for some of these larger mixed use residential. Developments. Within 30 years from now, maybe sooner. But I guess the point I'm trying to make is, is the city exploring kind of different ways to get the affordable housing things? I noticed a lot of what we do is just apartment complexes. That's it. And it seems to me that in this area it will be more beneficial than we have. Some. Of the things that so we have some smaller proof of concept of duplexes. Triplexes complexes, garden style apartments that are going to be in ten 15 minutes as opposed to 35. Or is the city exploring anything with that? And. Destroyed for the area reserved for affordable housing development? Chair. And Commissioner Kaiser yes. So as the affordable housing section, we do have a continuum of projects that we work on from single family all the way to large Multi-families I will add that one of the largest incentive tools for affordable housing development is the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program, which is funded through the state of New Mexico. That's where you see the largest investments. And so oftentimes there's a sweet spot for development, and it's usually anywhere from 60 to 80 units is why you're seeing those multi-families projects. But we do have other investment tools. We have a couple a triplex coming up and some other things. And then as part of the MRA, they've added some stuff in the foster area where we're going to densify some of the old public housing. And so we do try to sort of right size development to wherever we're going based on the funding sources and the incentives that we have

available to us. Yeah, I think all things considered. You know, just stick your housing in one place or if it's a project, right? I mean, that's proving to be more secure in Tennessee. And the first time in history. And we just see some. You make sure that we can do larger projects where so 30% affordable units and you get this, you know, this mixture of people and place which is proven to be an effective way of doing affordable housing. There's this one. It's just the folks on the street where everyone was just going to say. That's them. They want to progress. Right. And so I think finding ways to get that done, I think will help with some of the other issues that have been that are. Yeah. And we're in agreement with that. We do try to spread these across towns. Often the challenges is those incentive tools. So the low income housing tax credit, for example, it's an old Reagan program. It's not ideal, but it only funds a certain income level. And so oftentimes you have to find other funding sources which an MRA would allow us to do that. Mixed more mixed income development, which is our goal because we do agree that mixed income income communities are more successful for us. All right. Oh, yeah. I'm supposed to open a do we have public comment? George? Come on.

Thank you. Thank you for waiting. Thank you. Senator SIM. Economic development. For the record, do you want to swear me in. I'm sorry. Okay. Gentlemen. Ladies, I want to see you. Got me down in that area of town also. But I'm not sure the MRA will do it for you. Your last item on the agenda. You had a problem. You have residents and their businesses here. You have businesses and the residents. But in order to use any of these tools, you need to make the tax revenue or grow above what it is at the base level. As you know, Mr. Thurston, the arrival they're talking about is directly behind the loses. And I'm not really sure that the city would like the liability of having a whole bunch of people. Riding down leave a trail of rocks from one park to. Of. So I live in this area, and this is where the organization at its highest form, what they're presenting today. I also attended almost every MRA meeting. Congratulations on the 2000. Solicitations on the survey. I would like to know how many more the have given you information on the survey that's still online right now. Since your 2000 came from earlier surveys, correct? Okay. So how many people have answered the survey now? So we currently have

a plan open for comment. No survey okay. Well so we have a question to answer. I don't think this is urbanization. Realize and the MRA is not appropriate. Thank you thank you. All right. We're gonna move on. Yes. Yes. Just a discussion. All right. Here's a. One more for the end of the. Good evening, Madam Chair of community development, for the record. So this essentially kind of kept it rather broad. I just get everybody's opinion when it comes to our staff reports and our presentations that we have before you. We've been building over the last couple years. We've kind of. Evolved to become from this rather lengthy, admittedly kind of repetitive at times as well. Staff reports to a much more condensed effort for the kind of thing council has. And we just try to present everything to you all and speak to a chairman. Thurston. And he did say he would like to see some changes to that, maybe additional information, information that may not be too pertinent to items we did provide you all there a handout. Excuse me. Kind of a cheat sheet if you will. Cheat sheet if you will. That kind of explains the different types of applications that we take in a quick explanation of what it is and kind of what we're looking for, what you should be looking for, when you will start the case just to help you or give you a refresher, or if you need to kind of give you a little more

guidance as to what you're going to do while you're up on the on the dais. But at this time, I can take any suggestions you might have. I know it's kind of last minute like to just tell you what what you want us to. Report, but staff is definitely still take emails first of all, thank you for that report from City of Santa Fe. We looked at that in the past as well. We've had other things like that as well as other communities. What they do just kind of compare and contrast. Any suggestions tonight? If not, please email us. We'll put something together next meeting should be another meeting. So we could probably put this together. Options for you could see what we what we can put on there if that works for you. Of course, that's kind of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, because not all staff reports are created equal as you as you saw the one from Vince today that was rather intense compared to what I and John wrote. It's definitely apples and oranges or apples and oranges, but any suggestion? I'll definitely take those now. If not, we could definitely take those emails after the fact and phone calls. We do pick up the phone. For the purpose of it was, I think it was two meetings ago when we had too much energy and it was probably very good. So I just felt like, you know, I'm I'm approving this with the pencil, but I think I understand. But yet it wasn't fully like I think there was some questions about a park. There's supposed to be a park in the primary ground, but then again, if the park was in it or was it in the other was just kind of so. So once that started happening, I started feeling like maybe I'm going to have to

start tabling things instead of being able to approve things. I was just kind of like personal, but I, I love growth, I love pushing it forward, and I like doing that it on that one, I started getting to the point where I'm like, okay, maybe I could table things and then get more information. Wouldn't recommend, but they don't like that. But the even tonight's concept a little bit, it'd be nice to have a little bit more background and understanding what the developer is wanting to do. I don't know if that was developer. I know we tried to put it as vague as possible, right? Because then we get down to anything. But that's. But then there's also other master plans that you see throughout. I just wanted to Houston and came back and their master plan was phenomenal. They had a town architect that told you what buildings are going to be in there, what it looks like, like the whole works. And so there was no I know you were coming in with them after five minutes. And this is what my concept is. This is what I wanted to do, but we're not going to basically build the whole thing because the architect and the building, and they have the whole place sold out. It was called an algorithm, but that was kind of a it was it was just an eye opener for different things that other cities are doing than what we're doing will allow you to come in and work as a consequence of that. We should have that 15 month area, 15 in that area, 30 in that area, and that's going to be done at 34. Ever since I was a kid, that's what I've done. But then when we have a new master plan or a new walls of Cruces coming in, how do we going forward, I think that is one of the world's experts is how do we how do we understand that we're actually planning for the future? What is the planning? Zoning is not just the zoning for, as of right now, resemble the word planning. We're using this our designs, that he can do it. If that's the

design of it, I'm going for it. And that's the way it is. But I just I just need to have a conversation and understand really what the end of the presentations. I don't even know. Okay. When you have the time to think it says trails and park land concept location. This last one, we didn't really the park location, but we didn't talk about trails. I'm just trying to get more of a feedback and understanding that even that master plan, phase one you're really supposed to be put in the right effort from our side, and some of the presentations will help us invite us into, okay, these are the questions that we should be asking and things like that. Final thoughts when we get down to final thoughts. Those are basically just a procedural process, right? That's a little bit more in depth. But a final part of that that's kind of procedural we're going to use. Those are already done. So kind of wanting to understand where the planning process of it and then the presentations that were given, just having more background and especially when I'm doing the like tonight when this is the fifth master plan and master plan amendment, it would be nice to have a little bit more background on that to make better decisions, because if we were just like this one from the other one, I think that I've talked to you about some different has just timelines, how long it takes the developer to basically get to the point of what, because if it's a master plan and they've already gotten several members of the city. That it is the developer designation, the city designation, I just don't want to be the guy that said, okay, it's taken you two years to get here and I'll go back and do some more, you know? All right. I just would like to know some timelines on on things of how we can be more productive on. I

guess as a board to, to help that out those things. So I just ask them to think. So if you're sitting there the first time, I just I feel like I'm not getting really any more information about complex in this topic. I appreciate the fact that the presentation is typically more information, but that's not really helpful in trying to prepare for that. And I'm trying to understand the problem. What are the issues? What is our position on so that it's great to get it here? I feel like it's that's not you're just supposed to be. This is a party, right? The staff report is also public information. It throws people out in the community. What's on the agenda? Sometimes you look at a dinner, you have no idea what the project's about for most people, right? I mean, SOP, we typically understand more with the description, but a lot of people have very little contact just by reading these really technical descriptions about the changes. And that's something that amendments and finding the cracks and preliminary reports. So I think it's a disservice to women aware of their understanding when they see the sign posted outside of the paper. And they're like, what is the project? And the staff report should present the case publicly. And this is just the incredibly rare chance to have a dialog. So I think from my perspective, just I really don't feel like I know what is happening with the project. Before I got in here. And it's kind of an uncomfortable finding. So I think the Santa Fe example I shared, I think is just a nice way to organize it and kind of break it into some

of the big, you know, the big topics, you know, they have everything that's in traffic is its own section. We might actually what is the project proposing and what is that doing? What are the traffic impacts if there are any how many people access the site and access the site? But how are they, you know, travel within the site? Important to understand whether or not the project is consistent with the plans and policies of the city has in place, I don't believe it to be for staff. Just say that it is. I think they have to present some evidence that it that the project is proposing to do those things, but I'm not saying it has to be every detail. But when you make a statement that it's consistent with the zoning code, okay, well, what person zoning code is it consistent with? You know, what's the density? Is it consistent with the minimum densities? And I think especially as we get into this new phase with Cruces, I think it's going to be even more important because it's our own youth. And we need to consider like, here's what they're proposing, here's what the application is, and here is how it aligns with the new code, I think is going to be really important. You know, there's some for just recognizing the fact that I thought was like robust enough to be an example. But I agree with the point earlier that separately supported equal right. Some projects are super small. You know what we have the consent agenda or just. Subdividing, you know, a half acre parcel and say quarter to quarter acre parcels. Yeah. No, no, no need a letter. But I think we should still present enough evidence that it's being consistent with the codes and policies set forth. So I think for me that would just

be really helpful. I think having some sub sub headings maybe would be a vast improvement of just having a more cohesive, organized flow of the document as items. I feel like I'm reading one paragraph and then the next paragraph. I know we're completely in a different direction and there's really no transition there, so I think it's the content helping us make an informed decision. I think the. The organization of the document to that is kind of have a logical flow of organized and cohesive narrative. And then I also. Realize, I think the last two meetings, it seems like stems recommendation is no longer part of the template. So staff recommended approval, approval of conditions, denial. I don't think that's unacceptable anymore. So that would be helpful. What is the position of. So I think those are just my general comments. I think I would just like to see more info and also some analysis. So, you know, just verbatim what the applicant put in their letter. But having staff evaluate the proposal against the policies that we have, and I think it should be in the secret at this point with this group of kind of what questions we ask from meeting to meeting. So I think you can kind of gauge I'm going to ask about biking and transportation. So you know that that's going to be a section in both of. So just my thoughts, Chris, you got something. Yeah. Thanks, chair.

Community department. So all good comments. And so I just kind of want to toss this out here. So tonight when the zone change that was. Proposed was somewhat complicated right. I thought it was best that we have the applicant come up and speak a little bit towards that. Is that something that you feel could be beneficial now most things moving forward, did you like the way that tied in with what staff is doing? Not all the things, but the P and Z will be like complicated in the future. But just trying to gauge how you felt the applicant, or in combination with the staff's presentation, how that works for you. In this instance, I felt that was beneficial very much hearing it from the developer side of it. I mean, they they have the right to develop however they want as long as they follow the code right or what's presented. And I think hearing it from from the perspective and what his goal is and his thought process was, was very helpful. I have a slightly different view on that. I think I appreciate having this person think that option, but I think the preference is to say becaus. Thunderstorms up here just because the applicant comes in and says this will have to say go for it. Response analysis for the staff has to think about it. And there are questions that staff can't answer. Then I think it's appropriate to, you know, direct redirect it to the applicant. But I think first and foremost, I want hear what staff has said because we don't want any reference. We work for the community and for city. And so that's my first that's who I'm presenting. So I want to hear

from staff first. I thought beneficial as well, but we haven't been there for perspective from the could help. I think that could have helped him in previous ones as well. It would clarify that the couple other things. So that was not very. And then also being able to ask the applicant a little bit more questions has helped me clarify some of the things that I wanted to know. So thank you. Do we have any other discussions on this or anything that would help you guys to get the information you need? Just just for, clarification. So versus the staff review or recommendation, you, Mr. Chair, Commissioner Acosta DRC is essentially staff. Now we're going to realize it's actually our directors. So they're the ones who actually have the power to say at that meeting that's going to work to try to do this kind of thing. So it's still staff. So even if you don't get a staff recommendation, you're getting DRC recommendation, which is still staff. We did separate them typically in the past because staff would have their findings of fact. Just to show this is why it's at an end, they would say because DRC said they recommended approval. So we can definitely try to go back to that realm as well. But like I said, DRC and the minutes and the discussion that happens there, that explaining to you why they're recommending approved because that no issue from an engineering standpoint, because it meets all the design standards, because it meets all traffic requirements, so on and so forth like that. I like that because you can refer to it. But I get I do get that the implication of the applicant just kind of being standalone and kind of directly with a city almost, you know, kind of helps to mitigate any bias or anything like that. I think the important part of the staff

recommendation, I think just upfront from our perspective. Yes, sir. You don't have any other suggestions to help you clarify things? I think that's the main purpose of this for me was just to. I just want to make better decisions, more informed decisions. And I think that was it. I just I just wanted to have a little bit more information for you to automate that. So I just I had those. Feelings. I was thinking maybe you guys had some of those as well and like what you'd like to see differently in the presentation, just so that it's easier for you guys to also understand the, you know, what the applicant is asking for and said sometimes it's a little muddy. And so we're just trying to clarify that. So I'm just making it quicker in the council. So it doesn't have to be drawn out so long. You can get home get home and we can really get down to the seven points. Like for example, if it's we're always going to hear about bike lanes, right. So put that in the report. Where is it. Where are they. Right. Or they just might as well say I'm not putting any notes you know. So those are those are things that we already know is going to happen. And it will just be the process of it. So that's that was really my thing. If I just interject real quick, Mr. Chair. So things like that and the example for example. But those are not only our our master plan is more of just a planning tool. Those types of master plans are not on the planning tool, but it's actual implementation and development. I've been I worked in communities where they've been both sides of the spectrum were literally just said, this is my piece of land, and I'm going to do this because I'm allowed to. Of course, this is in Texas. I was like, yes, but to someone like this where you kind of show them where the road's going to go, you provide some densities, traffic counts and so forth. Then you get into those really intense ones where I was looking in California, you're allowed to do infill, but you got to do this and they basically had everything to

them, and they just signed off and they walked away. So there's different aspects when it comes to master planning. So just because you hear the word master planning, there's different interpretations of what a master planning depending on a municipality. Just want to clarify that. Thanks master planning. This is the huge area inside the retail. It's another setback for the density of we're going to put you know anyway, as long as it's not a document it's I mean it kind of is right. But it's more of it's kind of you know, so it's very important on that. So when you see some other places where it's like, okay, they're a little bit more. So I mean we have our schools are, you know, the more strict you get, the less business friendly you get as well. Right? So we're trying to I don't want to go down that road either. I'd still like to, to keep it in this way. But there's got to be a point where if the citizens of Las Cruces voted for your eyes or the whole process, and we have all of that going forward, right? Everyone says this is what we're doing, city council passes it. Then there's part of the. A point that we somehow in the Planning and Zoning Board have to agree and start pushing that through type of a deal. First is just whatever the applicant wants. So there is kind of that balancing act of like. You're kind of sending a judge up here, but also like allowing developers to do it like it's their their right to do what they, what they want. So it's a tough, touchy subject. So anyways, I'm going to stop. We can all go home. But if you could help out, just add a little bit more clarity to each one of those. If. Oh staff sorry staff announcements, we will be having a planning Zoning Commission meeting next month,

so just make plans for that, please. It should be a light up agenda, so make up for this one will be home before the sun goes down for the next one. Thank you. And that to congratulate you about moving on. It's finally official. Yes. So congratulations to everybody. The process. Welcome back. So I'm looking forward to the commission. One last comment Chris. Thank you for your team and for guiding them. And thank you Adam as well. So tell your staff, tell us city staff, thank you. So I know they work really hard and they have to work with different personalities. It's a diverse audience. So but thank you for all your hard work. Appreciate that. Thank you. Do we have to have a vote on. Some? All in favor I. I thank you for.